arXiv:1704.00281v1 [math.LO] 2 Apr 2017 adAayi aebe aebfr,eg sfollows: as e.g. before, made been have Analysis dard eut ntecmuainlcneto osadr nlssas Analysis in Nonstandard results Wattenberg’s of study content to computational is the paper on this of results aim the nutshell, a In aigtefloigipratobservation. important following car the separated making (and below treated be will Bishop’s cases from both notion clear, foundational become the as or h nrdcino atnegsppr[7 nldstefloigst following the includes [37] paper Wattenberg’s of introduction The content. iemne ttmnsmyb on n[,1,2–5 2 4 6 3 36, 34, 32, 21–25, 11, [9, word in the found interpret may be may statements Like-minded fMteais hn University Ghent Mathematics, of is fall, of First oee,Wtebr osfrhrta oto h aforement the of most than further goes Wattenberg However, uihCne o ahmtclPiooh,LUMnc,Ger Munich, LMU Philosophy, Mathematical for Center Munich -aladdress E-mail e od n phrases. and words Key OSADR NLSSADCONSTRUCTIVISM! AND ANALYSIS NONSTANDARD h lrpwrcntuto opoueamdl[ nteothe the On ] . upon non- . [. does highly model nonstandard it a is hand, produce as analysis to depending construction nonstandard ultrapower suspect, that the somewhat held thus been constructive, often has It ups fti ae st netgt hs da yexamining by ideas these investigate 303]) to p. ([37, is The examples. paper been ] several . has this . [. of author of constructivism. areas the and purpose unlikely analysis time rather nonstandard two some - between For mathematics affinity apparent an paper. by speculative struck a is This xeddnme e ecnpoedwt xlctcalculations. explicit with 31]) p. proceed [1, can original: in we (Emphasis set number extended title mlct lisrgrigtecntutv ttso h a Wattenberg’ the of of status some Part constructive of Standard the incorrectness regarding claims the implicit) Analysi establish Nonstandard we involving hand, modifica y (not slight to theorems seen only are constructive with Analysis Nonstandard resear hand, in recent one theorems of Wattenberg’s On light in connection. work mentioned Wattenberg’s con study and We Analysis Nonstandard matics. between connection possible a Abstract. osadr nlssadConstructivism? and Analysis Nonstandard similar : [email protected] lottodcdsao atnegpbihdapprwt th with paper a published Wattenberg ago, decades two Almost fNntnadAnalysis. Nonstandard of bevtoscnenn h osrciecneto Nonstan- of content constructive the concerning observations constructive osadr nlss osrciemteais computa mathematics, constructive Analysis, Nonstandard praxis . 1. A SANDERS SAM Introduction srmral osrcie aigthe having constructive; remarkably is stemisra/lsia oin‘effective’, notion mainstream/classical the as osrcieAnalysis Constructive nwihh pcltson speculates he which in xioms ) nteother the On s). edeetv and effective ield tutv mathe- structive ho h afore- the on ch epii and (explicit s in oeof some tion, Transfer ay&Department & many oe uhr by authors ioned n[28–31]. in efully). ] h reader The 8]. ih frecent of light [].A will As ([5]). atement: and e r tional 2 NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS AND CONSTRUCTIVISM!
Despite an essential nonconstructive kernel, many nonstandard ar- guments are constructive until the final step, a step that frequently involves the standard part map. ([37, p. 303]) This observation is similar to Osswald’s local constructivity. In particular, Osswald has qualified the observation from the above quotes as Nonstandard Analysis is locally constructive, to be understood as the fact that the mathematics performed in the nonstandard world is highly constructive1. By contrast, the nonstandard axioms (Transfer and Standard Part) needed to ‘jump between’ the nonstandard world and usual mathematics, are highly non-constructive in general. Osswald discusses local constructivity in [38, 7], [21, 1-2], or [22, 17.5]. § § § The results in [28–31] vindicate the Wattenberg and Osswald view in that com- putational content is extracted from theorems of ‘pure’ Nonstandard Analysis, i.e. formulated solely with the nonstandard definitions (of continuity, Riemann integra- tion, compactness, et cetera) rather than the ‘ε-δ’ definitions. With this choice, one only works in the nonstandard universe, avoiding the non-constructive step from and to the standard/usual universe (requiring Transfer and Standard Part). In this paper, we show that Wattenberg’s results from [37] yield effective and constructive results with only slight modification. However, we also establish the incorrectness of Wattenberg’s claims regarding the constructive status of the non- standard axioms Transfer and Standard Part. In contrast to Wattenberg, we shall work in Nelson’s axiomatic approach to Nonstandard Analysis (See Section 2), but this change of framework will have no real impact on our results or Wattenberg’s.
2. Internal set theory and its fragments In this section, we discuss Nelson’s internal set theory, first introduced in [18], and its fragments P and H from [3]. The latter fragments are essential to our enterprise, especially Theorem 2.4 below. 2.1. Internal set theory 101. In Nelson’s syntactic approach to Nonstandard Analysis ([18]), as opposed to Robinson’s semantic one ([26]), a new predicate ‘st(x)’, read as ‘x is standard’ is added to the language of ZFC, the usual foundation of mathematics. The notations ( stx) and ( sty) are short for ( x)(st(x) ... ) and ( y)(st(y) ... ). A formula∀ is called internal∃ if it does not∀ involve ‘st’,→ and external∃ otherwise.∧ The three external axioms Idealisation, Standard Part, and Transfer govern the new predicate ‘st’. These axioms are respectively defined2 as: (I) ( st finx)( y)( z x)ϕ(z,y) ( y)( stx)ϕ(x, y), for internal ϕ. (S) (∀stx)( st∃y)( ∀stz)∈(z x ϕ→(z))∃ z∀ y , for any ϕ. ∀ ∃ ∀ ∈ ∧ ↔ ∈ (T) ( stt) ( stx)ϕ(x, t) ( x)ϕ(x, t) , where ϕ(x, t) is internal, and only has free∀ variables∀ t, x. → ∀ The system IST is (the internal system) ZFC extended with the aforementioned external axioms; The former is a conservative extension of ZFC for the internal language, as proved in [18]. Clearly, the extension from ZFC to IST can be done for other systems, and we are interested in the formalisations of (classical and
1The mathematics performed in the nonstandard world usually amounts to merely manipulat- ing sums and products of nonstandard length. 2The superscript ‘fin’ in (I) means that x is finite, i.e. its number of elements are bounded by a natural number. NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS AND CONSTRUCTIVISM! 3 intuitionistic) arithmetic, namely Peano and Heyting arithmetic. In this regard, the systems H and P from [3], also sketched in the next sections, are nonstandard extensions of the (internal) logical systems E-HAω and E-PAω, respectively Heyting and Peano arithmetic in all finite types and the axiom of extensionality. We refer to [12, 3.3] for the exact definitions of the (mainstream in mathematical logic) systems§E-HAω and E-PAω.
2.2. The classical system P. In this section, we introduce the system P, a con- servative extension of Peano arithmetic with fragments of Nelson’s IST. ω ω To this end, recall that E-PA ∗ and E-HA ∗ are the definitional extensions of E-PAω and E-HAω with types for finite sequences, as in [3, 2]. For the former systems, we require some notation. § ω ω Notation 2.1 (Finite sequences). The systems E-PA ∗ and E-HA ∗ have a dedi- cated type for ‘finite sequences of objects of type ρ’, namely ρ∗. Since the usual coding of pairs of numbers goes through in both, we shall not always distinguish ρ ρ between 0 and 0∗. Similarly, we do not always distinguish between ‘s ’ and ‘ s ’, where the former is ‘the object s of type ρ’, and the latter is ‘the sequence ofh typei ρ ρ∗ with only element s ’. The empty sequence for the type ρ∗ is denoted by ‘ ρ’, usually with the typing omitted. Furthermore, we denote by ‘ s = n’ the lengthhi of ∗ ρ ρ ρ ρ | | the finite sequence s = s0,s1,...,sn 1 , where = 0, i.e. the empty sequence h ∗ ∗ − i |hi| has length zero. For sequences sρ ,tρ , we denote by ‘s t’ the concatenation of s and t, i.e. (s t)(i)= s(i) for i< s and (s t)(j)= t( s ∗ j) for s j < s + t . ∗ ∗ | | ∗ | |− | |≤ | | | | For a sequence sρ , we define sN := s(0),s(1),...,s(N) for N 0 < s . For a 0 ρ h i 0| | sequence α → , we also write αN = α(0), α(1),...,α(N) for any N . By way ∗ ρ ρ h i of shorthand, q Q abbreviates ( i < Q )(Q(i) =ρ q). Finally, we shall use ∈ σ0 σ∃k | | x,y,t,... as short for tuples x0 ,...xk of possibly different type σi. ω We can now introduce E-PAst∗. We use the same definition as [3, Def. 6.1], where ω ω E-PA ∗ is the definitional extension of E-PA with types for finite sequences from ω [3, 2]. The set ∗ is the collection of all the terms in the language of E-PA ∗. § T ω ω st Definition 2.2. The system E-PAst∗ is defined as E-PA ∗ + st∗ + IA , where st∗ consists of the following basic axiom schemas. T T (1) The schema3 st(x) x = y st(y), ∧ → 4 (2) The schema providing for each closed term t ∗ the axiom st(t). (3) The schema st(f) st(x) st(f(x)). ∈ T ∧ → The external induction axiom IAst is as follows. Φ(0) ( stn0)(Φ(n) Φ(n + 1)) ( stn0)Φ(n). (IAst) ∧ ∀ → → ∀ Secondly, we introduce some essential fragments of IST studied in [3]. Definition 2.3. [External axioms of P]
3 ω∗ The language of E-PAst contains a symbol stσ for each finite type σ, but the subscript is ∗ essentially always omitted. Hence Tst is an axiom schema and not an axiom. 4A term is called closed in [3] (and in this paper) if all variables are bound via lambda ab- straction. Thus, if x,y are the only variables occurring in the term t, the term (λx)(λy)t(x,y) is closed while (λx)t(x,y) is not. The second axiom in Definition 2.2 thus expresses that stτ (λx)(λy)t(x,y) if (λx)(λy)t(x,y) is of type τ. We usually omit lambda abstraction for brevity. 4 NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS AND CONSTRUCTIVISM!
(1) HACint: For any internal formula ϕ, we have ∗ st ρ st τ st ρ τ st ρ τ ( x )( y )ϕ(x, y) F → ( x )( y F (x))ϕ(x, y), (2.1) ∀ ∃ → ∃ ∀ ∃ ∈ (2) I: For any internal formula ϕ, we have ∗ ( stxσ )( yτ )( zσ x)ϕ(z,y) ( yτ )( stxσ)ϕ(x, y), ∀ ∃ ∀ ∈ → ∃ ∀ ω (3) The system P is E-PAst∗ + I + HACint.
Note that I and HACint are fragments of Nelson’s axioms Idealisation and Stan- dard part. By definition, F in (2.1) only provides a finite sequence of witnesses to ( sty), explaining its name Herbrandized Axiom of Choice. ∃ The system P is connected to E-PAω by Theorem 2.4. The latter (which is not present in [3]) expresses that we may obtain effective results as in (2.3) from any theorem of Nonstandard Analysis which has the same form as in (2.2).
Theorem 2.4. If ∆int is a collection of internal formulas and ψ is internal, and P + ∆ ( stx)( sty)ψ(x,y,a), (2.2) int ⊢ ∀ ∃ 4 then one can extract from the proof a sequence of closed terms t in ∗ such that T ω E-PA ∗ + ∆ ( x)( y t(x))ψ(x,y,a). (2.3) int ⊢ ∀ ∃ ∈ Proof. See e.g. [30, 2] or [29, 2]. § § For the rest of this paper, the notion ‘normal form’ shall refer to a formula as in (2.2), i.e. of the form ( stx)( sty)ϕ(x, y) for ϕ internal. It is shown in [29–31] that the scope of Theorem∀ 2.4 includes∃ the ‘Big Five’ systems of Reverse Mathematics and the associated ‘zoo’ from [7]. Finally, the previous theorems do not really depend on the presence of full Peano arithmetic. We shall study the following subsystems. Definition 2.5. [Weaker Systems] ω ω (1) Let E-PRA be the system defined in [13, 2] and let E-PRA ∗ be its defi- nitional extension with types for finite sequences§ as in [3, 2]. (2) (QF-ACρ,τ ) For every quantifier-free internal formula ϕ(x,§ y), we have ρ τ ρ τ ρ ( x )( y )ϕ(x, y) ( F → )( x )ϕ(x, F (x)) (2.4) ∀ ∃ → ∃ ∀ ω ω 1,0 (3) The system RCA0 is E-PRA + QF-AC . ω The system RCA0 is the ‘base theory of higher-order Reverse Mathematics’ as introduced in [13, 2]. We permit ourselves a slight abuse of notation by also § ω 1,0 ω referring to the system E-PRA ∗ + QF-AC as RCA0 . ω Corollary 2.6. The previous theorem and corollary go through for P and E-PA ∗ ω 1,0 ω replaced by P E-PRA ∗ + ∗ + HAC + I + QF-AC and RCA . 0 ≡ Tst int 0 ω Proof. The proof of [3, Theorem 7.7] goes through for any fragment of E-PA ∗ which includes EFA, sometimes also called I∆0 +EXP. In particular, the exponential function is (all what is) required to ‘easily’ manipulate finite sequences. We now discuss the Standard Part principle Ω-CA, a very practical consequence of the axiom HACint. Intuitively speaking, Ω-CA expresses that we can obtain the standard part (in casu G) of Ω-invariant nonstandard objects (in casu F ( ,M)). Note that we write ‘N Ω’ as short for st(N 0). · ∈ ¬ NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS AND CONSTRUCTIVISM! 5
(σ 0) 0 0 Definition 2.7. [Ω-invariance] Let F × → be standard and fix M Ω. Then F ( ,M) is Ω-invariant if ∈ · ( stxσ)( N 0 Ω) F (x, M)= F (x, N) . (2.5) ∀ ∀ ∈ 0 (σ 0) 0 0 Principle 2.8 (Ω-CA). Let F × → be standard and fix M Ω. For every σ 0 ∈ Ω-invariant F ( ,M), there is a standard G → such that · ( stxσ)( N 0 Ω) G(x)= F (x, N) . (2.6) ∀ ∀ ∈ 0 The axiom Ω-CA provides the standard part of a nonstandard object, if the latter is independent of the choice of nonstandard number used in its definition. The following theorem is not new, but highly instructive in light of Remark 2.10.
Theorem 2.9. The system P0 proves Ω-CA. Proof. Let F ( ,M 0) be Ω-invariant, i.e. we have · ( stxσ)( N 0,M 0 Ω) F (x, M)= F (x, N) . (2.7) ∀ ∀ ∈ 0 By underspill (See Theorem 2.13 below), we immediately obtain that st σ st 0 0 0 ( x )( k )( N ,M k) F (x, M)=0 F (x, N) . ∀ ∃ ∀ ≥ ∗ σ 0 Now apply HACint to obtain standard Φ → such that ( stxσ)( k0 Φ(x))( N 0,M 0 k) F (x, M)= F (x, N) . ∀ ∃ ∈ ∀ ≥ 0 Next, define Ψ(x) := maxi< Φ(x) Φ(x)(i) and note that | | ( stxσ)( N 0,M 0 Ψ(x)) F (x, M)= F (x, N) . ∀ ∀ ≥ 0 Finally, put G(x) := F (x, Ψ(x)) and note that Ω-CA follows.
Finally, we consider the following remark on how HACint and I are used.
Remark 2.10 (Using HACint and I). By definition, HACint produces a functional ∗ σ τ F → which outputs a finite sequence of witnesses. However, HACint provides an actual witnessing functional assuming (i) τ = 0 in HACint and (ii) the for- st σ 0 0 mula ϕ from HACint is ‘sufficiently monotone’ as in: ( x ,n ,m ) [n 0 m ∀ σ 0 ≤ σ ∧ ϕ(x, n)] ϕ(x, m) . Indeed, in this case one simply defines G → by G(x ) := → st σ maxi< F (x) F (x)(i) which satisfies ( x )ϕ(x, G(x)), as was done in the proof of | | ∀ Theorem 2.9. To save space in proofs, we will sometimes skip the (obvious) step involving the maximum of finite sequences, when applying HACint. We assume the same convention for terms obtained from Theorem 2.4, and applications of the contraposition of Idealisation I. 2.3. The constructive system H. In this section, we define the system H, the constructive counterpart of P. The system H was first introduced in [3, 5.2], and constitutes a conservative extension of Heyting arithmetic E-HAω by [3, Cor.§ 5.6]. ω ω st ω Similar to Definition 2.2, we define E-HAst∗ as E-HA ∗ + st∗ +IA , where E-HA ∗ ω T is essentially just E-PA ∗ without the law of excluded middle. Furthermore, define ω st H E-HAst∗ + HAC + I + NCR + HIP st + HGMP , ≡ ∀ where HAC is HACint without any restriction on the formula, and where the remain- ing axioms are defined in the following definition. Definition 2.11. [Three axioms of H] 6 NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS AND CONSTRUCTIVISM!
(1) HIP st ∀ st st st st [( x)φ(x) ( y)Ψ(y)] ( y′)[( x)φ(x) ( y y′)Ψ(y)], ∀ → ∃ → ∃ ∀ → ∃ ∈ ω where Ψ(y) is any formula and φ(x) is an internal formula of E-HA ∗. (2) HGMPst st st [( x)φ(x) ψ] ( x′)[( x x′)φ(x) ψ] ∀ → → ∃ ∀ ∈ → ω where φ(x) and ψ are internal formulas in the language of E-HA ∗. (3) NCR ∗ τ st ρ st ρ τ ( y )( x )Φ(x, y) ( x )( y )( x′ x)Φ(x′,y), ∀ ∃ → ∃ ∀ ∃ ∈ ω where Φ is any formula of E-HA ∗ Intuitively speaking, the first two axioms of Definition 2.11 allow us to perform a number of non-constructive operations (namely Markov’s principle and indepen- dence of premises) on the standard objects of the system H, provided we introduce a ‘Herbrandisation’ as in the consequent of HAC, i.e. a finite list of possible wit- nesses rather than one single witness. Furthermore, while H includes Idealisation I, one often uses the latter’s classical contraposition, explaining why NCR is useful (and even essential) in the context of intuitionistic logic. Surprisingly, the axioms from Definition 2.11 are exactly what is needed to con- vert nonstandard definitions (of continuity, integrability, convergence, et cetera) into the normal form ( stx)( sty)ϕ(x, y) for internal ϕ, as done in [29, 3.1]. The latter normal form plays∀ an∃ equally important role in the constructive§ case as in the classical case by the following theorem.
Theorem 2.12. If ∆int is a collection of internal formulas, ϕ is internal, and H + ∆ stx sty ϕ(x,y,a), (2.8) int ⊢ ∀ ∃ then one can extract from the proof a sequence of closed terms t in ∗ such that T ω E-HA ∗ + ∆ x y t(x) ϕ(x,y,a). (2.9) int ⊢ ∀ ∃ ∈ Proof. Immediate by [3, Theorem 5.9]. Note that in the latter, just like in the proof of Corollary 2.4, stx sty ϕ(x,y,a) is proved to be ‘invariant’ under a suitable ∀ ∃ syntactic translation. Finally, we point out some very useful principles to which we have access.
Theorem 2.13. The systems P, P0, and H prove overspill and underspill, i.e. ( stxρ)ϕ(x) ( yρ) st(y) ϕ(y) and ( xρ) st(x) ϕ(x)] ( styρ)ϕ(y), ∀ → ∃ ¬ ∧ ∀ ¬ → → ∃ for any internal formula ϕ. Proof. Immediate by [3, Prop. 3.3 and 5.11]. We will apply underspill most frequently as follows: From ( M Ω)ψ(M) for internal ψ, we conclude that ( K0) st(K) ( M K)ψ(∀M) .∈ Applying ∀ ¬ → ∀ ≥ underspill for ϕ(K) ( M K)ψ(M), we obtain ( stK0)( M K)ψ(M). ≡ ∀ ≥ ∃ ∀ ≥ In conclusion, we have introduced the systems H, P, which are conservative extensions of Peano and Heyting arithmetic with fragments of Nelson’s internal set theory. We have observed that central to the conservation result in Theorem 2.4 is the normal form ( stx)( sty)ϕ(x, y) for internal ϕ. ∀ ∃ NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS AND CONSTRUCTIVISM! 7
2.4. Notations. In this section, we introduce notations relating to H and P. First of all, we mostly use the same notations as in [3]. Remark 2.14 (Notations). We write ( stxτ )Φ(xτ ) and ( stxσ)Ψ(xσ ) as short for ( xτ ) st(xτ ) Φ(xτ ) and ( xσ) st(xσ∀) Ψ(xσ) . We also∃ write ( x0 Ω)Φ(x0) ∀ → ∃ ∧ ∀ ∈ and ( x0 Ω)Ψ(x0) as short for ( x0) st(x0) Φ(x0) and ( x0) st(x0) ∃ ∈ ∀ ¬ → ∃ ¬ ∧ Ψ(x0) . Furthermore, st(x0), is abbreviated by ‘x0 Ω’. A formula A is ‘internal’ ¬ ∈ if it does not involve st, and ‘external’ otherwise. The formula Ast is defined from A by appending ‘st’ to all quantifiers (except bounded number quantifiers). Secondly, we will use the usual notations for natural, rational and real numbers and functions as introduced in [13, p. 288-289]. We only list the definition of real number and related notions in P and related systems. Definition 2.15 (Real numbers and related notions in P). (1) A (standard) real number x is a (standard) fast-converging Cauchy sequence 1 0 0 1 q( ), i.e. ( n ,i )( qn qn+i) <0 2n ). We use Kohlenbach’s ‘hat function’ · ∀ | − | from [13, p. 289] to guarantee that every sequence f 1 is a real. 1 1 (2) We write [x](k) := qk for the k-th approximation of a real x = (q( )). · (3) Two reals x, y represented by q( ) and r( ) are equal, denoted ‘x =R y’, if 1 · · n− R ( n)( qn rn 2 1 ). Inequality ‘< ’ is defined similarly. ∀ | − |≤ st 1 (4) We write ‘x y’ if ( n)( qn rn 2n−1 ) and x y if x>y x y. (5) Functions F ≈: R R∀mapping| − reals|≤ to reals are represented≫ by functionals∧ 6≈ 1 1 → Φ → mapping equal reals to equal reals, i.e. ( x, y)(x =R y Φ(x)=R Φ(y)). (RE) ∀ → (6) For a space X with metric X : X R, we write ‘x y’ for ‘ x y X 0’. |·| → ρ 0 ρ ρ≈ 0 | − | ≈ (7) Sets of objects of type ρ are denoted X → , Y →,Z → ,... and are given ρ 0 ρ by their characteristic functions fX→ , i.e. ( x )[x X fX (x) =0 1], ρ 0 ∀ ∈ ↔ where fX→ is assumed to output zero or one. Thirdly, we use the usual extensional notion of equality. Remark 2.16 (Equality). All the above systems include equality between natural numbers ‘=0’ as a primitive. Equality ‘=τ ’ for type τ-objects x, y is defined as:
τ1 τk [x =τ y] ( z ...z )[xz ...zk = yz ...zk] (2.10) ≡ ∀ 1 k 1 0 1 if the type τ is composed as τ (τ1 ... τk 0). Inequality ‘ τ ’ is then just (2.10) with ‘= ’ replaced by ‘ ≡’. In→ the spirit→ of→ Nonstandard Analysis,≤ we define 0 ≤0 ‘approximate equality τ ’ as follows: ≈ st τ1 τk [x τ y] ( z ...z )[xz ...zk = yz ...zk] (2.11) ≈ ≡ ∀ 1 k 1 0 1 with the type τ as above. All the above systems include the axiom of extensionality: ρ ρ ρ τ ( x ,y , ϕ → ) x =ρ y ϕ(x)=τ ϕ(y) . (E) ∀ → However, as noted in [3, p. 1973], the so-called axiom of standard extensionality st (E) is problematic and cannot be included in our systems. We use (E)n+2 to refer to (E) restricted to type n + 2 functionals ϕ. 2.5. Preliminaries. In this section, we introduce the usual defintions of continuity, as well as some fragments of Transfer and Standard Part, their normal forms, and the functionals arising from term extraction as in Theorem 2.4. 8 NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS AND CONSTRUCTIVISM!
2.5.1. Continuity, nonstandard and otherwise. Definition 2.17. [Continuity] A function f is continuous on [0, 1] if 1 1 ( k0)( x [0, 1])( N 0) ( y [0, 1])( x y